Disposed

S.Vijayalakshmi v. The Managing Director

Madras HC23 Dec 2021WP/27287/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226, the court directed the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation regarding the relocation of a shop by TASMAC. The disposal was left in the hands of the administration.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the District Collector to consider the petitioner's representation and dispose of the matter within six weeks of receiving a copy of this order.

S.Vijayalakshmi Vs The Managing Director — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶2

DATED : 23.12.2021

¶3

CORAM

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

¶5

W.P.NO.27287 OF 2021

¶6

(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

¶7

S.Vijayalakshmi, W/o.T.R.Siva Ganaguru ... Petitioner

¶8

The Managing Director,

¶9

Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), CMDA Tower-II,

¶10

IV floor, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road,

¶11

Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

¶12

The District Collector, Singaravellar Mailgai, Kamarajar Salai,

¶13

Chennai - 600 001.

¶14

The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), 735, 4^th Floor, LLA building, Annasalai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶15

The District Manager, Chennai North, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), Plot No.B4, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 053. ... Respondents

¶16

Prayer: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus, directing the second and third respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated 14.10.2021 thereby shifting/relocating the shop No.69 from the petitioner's shop situated at No.31/24, Ground Floor, Dr.Vijayaraghavan Road, Old Washermenpet, Chennai - 600 021 comprised in R.S.No.1793/13 measuring to an extent of 900 Sq. Ft., to some other place.

¶17

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶18

For Petitioner : Mr.R.Bhagawat Krishna For Respondents : For R1, R3 & R4 : Mr.P.Arumugarajan Standing Counsel For R2 : Mr.M.Alagu Goutham Government Advocate

¶19

ORDER

¶20

Mr.P.Arumugarajan, learned Standing Counsel takes notice on behalf of the first, third and fourth respondents and Mr.M.Alagu Goutham, learned Government Advocate takes notice on behalf of the second respondent.

¶21

Mr.M.Alagu Goutham, learned Government Advocate for the second respondent submits that appropriate orders will be passed on the representations dated 14.10.2021 of the petitioner within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶22

Recording the same, this Writ Petition is disposed by directing the second respondent to consider the petitioner representations and dispose the same within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.

¶23

Sd/-

¶24

Assistant Registrar(CS III)

¶25

//True Copy//

¶26

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶27

arb

¶28

¶29

The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), CMDA Tower-II,

¶30

IV floor, Gandhi Irwin Bridge Road,

¶31

Egmore, Chennai - 600 008.

¶32

The District Collector, Singaravellar Mailgai, Kamarajar Salai,

¶33

Chennai - 600 001.

¶34

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶35

The Senior Regional Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), 735, 4^th Floor, LLA building, Annasalai, Chennai - 600 002.

¶36

The District Manager, Chennai North, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Limited (TASMAC), Plot No.B4, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Chennai - 600 053.

¶37

+1cc to Mr.R.Bhagawat Krishna, Advocate, S.R.No.69210

¶38

W.P.No.27287 of 2021

¶39

NRL(CO) PM/12/01/2022

¶40

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Vijayalakshmi v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Vijayalakshmi v. The Managing Director

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohan Sharma Vs Chennai Metropolitan

Sathosh Kumar Kannodia Vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

M/s. Makwuds India Privat Limited Vs The Principal commissioner of customs

S.Rajamuniyasmay Vs The Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise

Tvl.National Furnitures and Appliances Vs Commercial Tax Officer (main)

Burnt Umber Fashion Private Limited Vs Assistant commissioner (St)